Tamron 17-50/2.8 for Canon?

baby duck monge · Sep 4, 2007, 11:22 AM

Just wondering if any Canon shooters have any experience with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens. Been thinking about switching to an XT and purchasing that in lieu of the kit lens. Yes, it costs 3x as much, but the kit lens does not seem to get very good reviews (not sharp).

Thoughts on that lens? Example pictures? Suggestions for an alternative lens? I guess if you have any thoughts about the kit lens, I will listen to those, as well.

Danke!

Zeke · Sep 4, 2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baby duck monge

Just wondering if any Canon shooters have any experience with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens. Been thinking about switching to an XT and purchasing that in lieu of the kit lens. Yes, it costs 3x as much, but the kit lens does not seem to get very good reviews (not sharp).

Thoughts on that lens? Example pictures? Suggestions for an alternative lens? I guess if you have any thoughts about the kit lens, I will listen to those, as well.

Danke!

It's a great lens. I have one and love it. Here's the one pic I can think of that I have posted taken with this lens.

walangij · Sep 4, 2007, 03:21 PM

I used the lens on a trip, it was great, useable at 2.8 and a nice focal range on the XT. AF is noisy but quick, saturation and IQ was better than the kit lens but below L level, about the same with the $900 17-55 IS although that has a higher IQ and better color in my opinion. It's fantastic for the price and a good stepping stone to more expensive gear if you ever choose to do so (you might not b/c this lens is great already).

colorspace · Sep 4, 2007, 10:28 PM

I would agree with the above comment - I used one for a week and it was very, very sharp even wide open and at all ranges. Mine had a bit of vignetting and colors were not as saturated as L glass, but still very nice - a tiny bit of PS and you'd never know.

For the price you can't beat it.

colorspace · Sep 4, 2007, 10:30 PM

with the possible exception of a good Sigma 18-50mm, but you have to get a good one, there seems to be a lot of variation and the range between the Tam's 17mm and Siggy 18mm is more than it should be.

colorspace · Sep 14, 2007, 10:18 AM

BTW - if you are interested in looking at some full res images from the 17-50mm Tamron, drop me a line with an email that will accept some large images and I'll be happy to send you some.

Sep 4, 2007, 11:22 AM	#1
baby duck monge macrumors 68000 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Memphis, TN	Tamron 17-50/2.8 for Canon? Just wondering if any Canon shooters have any experience with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens. Been thinking about switching to an XT and purchasing that in lieu of the kit lens. Yes, it costs 3x as much, but the kit lens does not seem to get very good reviews (not sharp). Thoughts on that lens? Example pictures? Suggestions for an alternative lens? I guess if you have any thoughts about the kit lens, I will listen to those, as well. Danke! __________________ When I get sad I stop being sad and get awesome. True story. My Heatware.
	0

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 70-200 f/4 L non-IS?	sprtnbsblplya	Digital Photography	6	Aug 13, 2010 06:14 AM
Canon 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS -OR- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8	MattSepeta	Digital Photography	13	Sep 17, 2009 10:26 PM
FT: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for Tamron 24-135 or Nikon 18-135	taylorwilsdon	Marketplace Archive 2	3	Jan 2, 2008 07:36 PM

Sep 4, 2007, 03:21 PM	#3
walangij macrumors 6502 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: MI	I used the lens on a trip, it was great, useable at 2.8 and a nice focal range on the XT. AF is noisy but quick, saturation and IQ was better than the kit lens but below L level, about the same with the $900 17-55 IS although that has a higher IQ and better color in my opinion. It's fantastic for the price and a good stepping stone to more expensive gear if you ever choose to do so (you might not b/c this lens is great already).
	0

Sep 4, 2007, 10:28 PM	#4
colorspace macrumors regular Join Date: Jul 2005	I would agree with the above comment - I used one for a week and it was very, very sharp even wide open and at all ranges. Mine had a bit of vignetting and colors were not as saturated as L glass, but still very nice - a tiny bit of PS and you'd never know. For the price you can't beat it.
	0

Sep 4, 2007, 10:30 PM	#5
colorspace macrumors regular Join Date: Jul 2005	with the possible exception of a good Sigma 18-50mm, but you have to get a good one, there seems to be a lot of variation and the range between the Tam's 17mm and Siggy 18mm is more than it should be.
	0

Sep 14, 2007, 10:18 AM	#6
colorspace macrumors regular Join Date: Jul 2005	BTW - if you are interested in looking at some full res images from the 17-50mm Tamron, drop me a line with an email that will accept some large images and I'll be happy to send you some.
	0


MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography